We Don’t Hate Politics in Music, We Hate Politics from Musicians

In the latest instance of people not being allowed to enjoy things, leftists, Redditors, and the chronically online are furious at James Hetfield, the frontman of legendary heavy metal band Metallica, for stating during a recent Las Vegas performance that the band is not interested in lecturing its audience about politics. This comes (presumably) in response to the backlash at Ed Sheeran for failing to be sufficiently vocal in defense of Palestine and instead just wanting to play music. Sorry, Ed, you are not allowed to just play music! In today’s culture, the role of the musician is apparently not to entertain, but to relentlessly inflict propaganda on the audience. Of course, it has to be the right propaganda. Last time I checked, neo-Nazi white nationalist Scandinavian black metal bands don’t get a lot of praise for wearing their political views on their tattered, blackened sleeves.

The fact that some people just want to enjoy music for music’s sake is infuriating to a certain type of activist, who insists that everything, and especially all art, is political. Anyone who says they prefer their riffs without a side order of partisan hectoring is dismissed as an ignorant philistine who doesn’t realize that heavy metal music is, and always has been, about expressing political views. As a representative sample of this kind of outlook, take this tweet, which points out that famous and popular anthems by bands like Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden contain political messaging opposing war and genocide. This is presented as a gotcha to expose the (I guess) hypocrisy of those who complain about politics in music. “Ah, but you didn’t object when Black Sabbath did it!” That’s right, we didn’t, which should be a clue there’s a difference between listening to and enjoying a well-written anti-war song like War Pigs, and sitting through a tedious sermon when you paid for a concert.

Of course there have always been political messages in music, and especially in genres like heavy metal and punk. No one disputes that, so to continue to bring up examples of political songs misses the point. An intelligent person could tell through context that when someone complains about politics in music, they are not complaining about these types of songs, but rather about the increasingly fashionable tendency for musicians to think it is their place to tell the audience, not through nuanced lyricism but through heavy-handed diatribes, how to think and how to vote.

As usual, language seems to be what’s tripping people up. The word “politics” encompasses a broad enough range of meanings for it to be used in several very distinct ways. This is the case with many words, but most people are generally savvy enough to understand what is meant through context. At least, most people not determined to make the deliberate misunderstanding of others their main occupation.

The problem is that the “all art is political” crowd appears to genuinely see no difference between art that makes even the most oblique comment about some aspect of life or society, and a one-dimensional screed demanding that the audience support a particular political party, cause, or candidate. Here’s an example of someone insisting that all art is political because it “makes a statement”. Yes, it’s true that all art makes a statement (although even the word “statement” is stretched towards meaninglessness in the case of something like a Bach fugue, which is more about musical language and form than any societal issues). But no one is objecting to “making a statement” per se. The objection is to artists who abandon the subtlety and craft of their art to instead deliver speeches, as if they would prefer to be demagogues than songwriters.

The beauty of art, and one of its principal reasons for existing, is that it allows artists to say things in ways beyond the obvious and the prosaic. It permits the expression of universal truths or complex ideas in ways which are more elegant, and often more persuasive, than mere direct argumentation. Often these modes of expression bypass the rational, analytical mind altogether, tapping into the subconscious and the emotions in ways that ordinary rhetoric doesn’t and can’t. That is because true art is in dialogue with the audience; it does not dictate to them, but allows room for them to insert their own experiences and interpretations into understanding it. Once a political message becomes a one-way street, shutting off avenues for the audience to engage, it ceases to be art at all.

One of the harshest critics of James Hetfield after his recent comments was Roger Waters, the bassist and principal songwriter for Pink Floyd. Waters is notorious for going off on bitter, leftist rants at his concerts, so it’s no surprise that he differs from Hetfield on this point. But Waters is also an artist who, on some level at least, understands how to do politics in music in a way that isn’t obnoxious. On Pink Floyd’s stellar 1977 album Animals, Waters puts an Orwellian spin on British politics by likening his country’s industry leaders to dogs, politics to pigs, and citizens to sheep. Waters’ lyrics are scathing, powerful, with their impact bolstered by the strength of the instrumental melodies behind them. Who can listen to the following, with its dark, heavy, and echoing culmination, without being moved?

And when you lose control
You’ll reap the harvest you have sown
And as the fear grows
The bad blood slows and turns to stone

And it’s too late to lose the weight
You used to need to throw around
So have a good drown as you go down
All alone, dragged down by the stone

It’s a little better than just “Republicans are fascists” or “free Palestine”, isn’t it?

No one is asking artists not to use their art to say what they want about the world. All we’re asking is that musicians actually make and perform music. If they would rather be pundits, I’m sure there are plenty of opportunities for a career change that wouldn’t involve disappointing fans or attempting to conscript them to the cause du jour.